The Garrison Group: What one top CIA official said about Clay Shaw

In response to a JFK Facts post on the CIA’s still-secret file on New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, author Peter Janney sent the following comment about the CIA’s secret monitoring of Garrison’s JFK investigation.

The fact that counterintelligence chief Jim Angleton oversaw this effort is very telling. Angleton’ job was to prevent penetration of the agency by a foreign powers. Yet his Garrison Group showed no interest in whether Garrison was cooperating with or advancing the agenda of another intelligence service. So why did Angleton care? To me the most plausible explanation is that Angleton feared Garrison might uncovered evidence of a counterintelligence operation in New Orleans or Angleton’s pre-assassination interest in Oswald. Or both.

To the story Janney, the son of a CIA officer, adds an important detail that I had forgotten.

Janney is the author of Mary’s Mosaic, an investigation of the murder of Mary Meyer, the Georgetown artist and mistress of President Kennedy whom he knew as a child.

Janney writes:

“What is lacking in this article is the fact that on September 20, 1967, the CIA held its first “Garrison Group Meeting” (No 1 – 20 September 1967). This high level, classified meeting was attended by the “Executive Director, General Counsel, Inspector General, Deputy Director for Plans, Mr. Raymond Rocca of CI Staff, Director of Security and Mr. Goodwin.”

“1) “Executive Director said that the Director has asked him to convene a group to consider the possible implications for the Agency emanating from New Orleans before, during, and after the trial of Clay Shaw.”

“2) “General Counsel discussed his dealings with Justice and the desire of Shaw’s lawyers to make contact with the Agency.”

“3) “[Raymond] Rocca [who was Jim Angleton’s chief lieutenant] felt that Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.”

“4) Executive Director said the group should level on two objectives: (a) what kind of action, if any, is available to the Agency, and (b) what actions should be taken inside the Agency to reassure the Director that we have the problem in focus. The possibility of Agency action should be examined from the timing of what can be done before the trial and what might be feasible during and after the trial. It was agreed that OGC and Rocca would make a detailed study of all the facts and consult with Justice as appropriate prior to the next meeting.”

“The meeting was chaired by my father – “F.W.M. Janney”

“So, as early as 1967, we learn here that ‘Rocca felt that Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.’

“Here, we have a high-level internal CIA meeting where the No. 2 main on the Counter Intelligence staff (Ray Rocca) tells everyone that Garrison ‘would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw,’ only because Rocca knew what had taken place. Game, set, and Match! The CIA is guilty, and always has been !?’

———

Jefferson Morley’s new ebook, CIA and JFK: The Secret Assassination Files, available on Amazon, provides the fullest account yet of the JFK records that the CIA is still concealing in 2016 and why they should be made public in October 2017.

I don’t know where else to address this but one of the most interesting things in Janey’s book is it’s discussion of Joe Shimon, a Washington Police Officer assigned to the Whitehouse. With badges for the SS, DoD, and CIA per his Daughter. As the take care of things in town guy with access to President’s from Roosevelt past Kennedy he knew a lot. I’ve not read about him elsewhere. Has he been discredited? If not why not referred to by researchers or his story investigated? In the 90’s he told his daughter “The Kennedy’s had mob ties”, he continued “but he biggest crooks in the country are the Bushes”…Pg. 388.

The CIA’s explanation for its interest (and interference) in the Shaw Trial (or Max Holland’s explanation if you make the distinction) is that they were anxious to protect the fact that Shaw had a minor involvement with the CIA and that his exposure would deter future information providers from commerce. (The credibility of the justice system was perhaps not a priority)

The plausibility of this argument rests on with whether you believe that the head of the CIA would consider Shaw’s protection to be a big enough goal to risk the local cover-up looking like a cover-up of global significance.